What was the language
that Jesus (Yeshua) communicated in as
he taught and interacted with the people of Israel? Some say it was Greek since
that is the language of the New Testament. Some say Aramaic, picked up by the
children of Israel during their seventy-year captivity in Babylon, since they
suppose that Hebrew was a dead language at the time of Jesus. Finally, the
minority view holds that Jesus spoke Hebrew, the language of his people, of
Moses, David and the prophets. Nevertheless, Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew, couldn’t
he have spoken all three? While it is entirely possible that he spoke all
three, the issue that our discussion will focus on is what language he most
often communicated in. After all, the creator of the universe would obviously
be able to speak whatever language he desired, but of course speaking a
language is only useful if those around you can understand what you are saying.
So our question quickly becomes limited to what language the disciples and
followers of Jesus spoke. That is not to say what they were capable of
speaking, but rather, what language they spoke in the markets, their homes and
in their inner circles when sharing their thoughts.

Even if we can
determine what language Jesus most often communicated in, does it really
matter? Yes, it does matter! The language of Jesus is important to our
understanding of the Jewish culture and world in which Jesus lived, taught and
interacted. So much of a culture is wrapped up in its language that it is often
difficult to separate the two. Knowing what language Jesus and the Jewish
people living in Israel[1]in his day
spoke, helps us better understand the words, phrases and teachings that were
used in the New Testament

Perhaps even more
significant to why this is important is that the Bible says that he spoke
Hebrew! The idea that Jesus spoke only Aramaic and not Hebrew is neither
historical nor Biblical. The New Testament clearly and unambiguously says that
Jesus spoke Hebrew and that Hebrew was used in his day; it never refers to
Aramaic. In spite of this, most Biblical scholars have taught that Hebrew was a
dead language at the time of Jesus. They claim that when the New Testament says
Hebrew, it really means Aramaic; in other words, they say that
the phrase Hebrew language really means Aramaic. Just as the
phrase Americanlanguage means English, so they say that
the Hebrew language in the New Testament actually means Aramaic.

Greek,
Aramaic and Hebrew

Perhaps
Greek?

We see evidence in the
New Testament that Greek was indeed spoken in first century Israel. A number of
Greek inscriptions have also been found in the land from this period (a result
of the conquests of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC). Greek for
centuries had been the international language of the Ancient Near East
including Israel. Moreover, Josephus reports that there were signs in the
Jerusalem Temple “…declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in
Roman letters, that ‘no foreigner should go within that sanctuary’ for that
second [court of the] temple was called ‘the Sanctuary,’…” (Wars 5,5,2)
Also one of the languages of the sign on Jesus’ cross[2] was Greek (John
19:20) – thus there can be no doubt that Greek was used in Jesus’ day.
In fact, this is an issue which hardly needs to be mentioned. After all, the
entire New Testament has come down to us in Koine Greek, a dialect of Jesus’
day. However, almost all scholars agree that the mother tongue of the Jews in Israel
was not Greek. As we will see, the New Testament records various words written
in the spoken language and then transliterated and translated into Greek.

Aramaic
or Hebrew?

So, if not Greek, then
we are left with two options: Aramaic or Hebrew. This is truly where opinions
differ. Admittedly, nearly all scholars have argued and still maintain the
position that the common language of Jesus’ day was Aramaic. The theory is so
prevalent that it is taught in seminaries as fact that Hebrew was a dead language
by the time of Jesus.

Barbara Grimes, in her
book, Language Choice in First Century Christianity, unambiguously
declares, “In the homeland of the Jewish people in the first Century AD,
Aramaic was the mother tongue and principal language of most of the people,
including virtually all of the women.” (Grimes 1987:20-21) Alfred Edersheim, an
expert on the life of Jesus, suggests that Hebrew was nothing more than a
language used in the Temple and synagogues and the messages had to be
translated into Aramaic for the commoners (Edersheim 1993:91). Edersheim and
Grimes are not alone; perhaps the majority of scholars have had a mistaken view
of Mishnaic Hebrew, the Hebrew of Jesus’ day. Probably typical of the
prevailing opinion was Abraham Geiger’s suggestion, given in 1845, that
Mishnaic Hebrew was an artificial creation of Rabbis whose native tongue was
Aramaic (Buth 1987:25). One of the most frequently cited scholars is Matthew
Black, an expert of Aramaic and proponent of the idea that Hebrew was a dead
language in the time of Jesus. He says

…the Aramaic speaking
masses…could no longer understand Hebrew. The use of the term ‘Hebrew’ to refer
to Aramaic is readily explicable, since it described the peculiar dialect of
Aramaic which had grown up in Palestine since the days of Nehemiah and which
was distinctively Jewish … (Black 1967:48)

This belief became so commonplace
that the New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible followed suit
with the assumption by systematically translating the words ῾Εβραΐδι
Hebraidiand ῾Εβραϊστὶ Hebraisti (both mean Hebrew)
as Aramaic. For example in John 5:2 the
NIV translates “…near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called
Bethesda…” instead of the literal translation Hebrew (though “or Hebrew”
is in the footnotes). Obviously, the rationale for doing so stems from the
belief that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew. Is this justifiable when the word is
clearly Hebrew? When Paul, in Philippians 3:5,
describes himself as a “Hebrew of Hebrews,” the NIV correctly retains Hebrew
instead of Aramaic or Aramean. They translate the same word ῾Εβραῖος (Hebraios – related to the two
variations above) as Hebrew in Philippians; why not retain the
translation in the other passages which are talking about the language? It is
unfortunate that the belief that Aramaic had replaced Hebrew is so strong that
Bible translators feel justified in changing the text of the New Testament
instead of simply faithfully translating what it says even if it is in
contradiction to current scholarship.

Though the prevalent
theory of Aramaic as the mother tongue of Jesus is overwhelming, the view is in
need of a revision that more accurately represents the language situation in
Jesus’ day. Once we begin investigating, we discover that there is a great deal
of evidence from the New Testament, as well as a plethora of external evidence
showing that Jesus spoke Hebrew (not Aramaic) as his mother tongue and in his
daily life and ministry.

This is not to say that Aramaic was not spoken. The
amount of evidence is irrefutable that Aramaic was one of the languages
of His day. However, the historical and biblical evidence attests to the fact
that He was speaking Hebrew. Again, this is important since to say otherwise
does not accurately represent Jesus. Also, recognizing His language as Hebrew
demonstrates the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God, and provides a
continuum of teaching from the Old Testament up to and through the life and
ministry of the Messiah.

A Road Map

In order to resolve the question of just what Jesus
was speaking as His day-to-day language of communication, we will, first of
all, look at the historical evidence coupled with the testimony of the New
Testament in order to see what ancient authors had to say about the language of
the day. After reviewing what history has to tell us, we will then examine,
from a linguistic point of view, the actual words of Jesus (plus a few others),
as recorded in the New Testament. This is necessary since words and phrases,
such as talitha kumi have so often been used to "prove" that
He really spoke Aramaic. Our linguistic examination will reveal that He was
speaking Hebrew, just like the New Testament says.

[1] Israel at the time
of Jesus refers generally to the areas of Judea, Galilee and perhaps Samaria as
well.

[2]SeeThe Sign on the Cross of Jesus for the discussion
of the supposed hidden message on the sign on the cross.